Quote Originally Posted by snake View Post
I can't agree with this part - how did you come up with that? a "round" is an artificial construct - how could it impact the probability of a draw occuring? furthermore - if it were true - then when you are doubling your wagers to chase your losses you are doing so in games you deem "more risky".

interesting adaptation to traditional split-martingale: i'll look into this further.
I'm assuming data was collected for various rounds. e.g. How many "rounds" had at least 1 draw. And then How many rounds had more than 1 draw. I presume the latter was significantly lower.

I imagine that you could ignore the round factor, and given you had enough in the bank, could simple keep betting until another draw, and repeat once you win irrespective of rounds. However, this would possibly require mor money in the bank to chase the losses.
EDIT: Oops, just saw pv4;s post.


Why does it need to pay more than $3. Is that to make it worthwhile with a higher return? I imagine $2 would also work. As with Roulette, the similar thing applies. Bet on Red, keep doubling your bet until you win, and you'll be x (waterer your starting bet) was, in front.